Another Socialist Victory in South America

nwr, obviously I am referring to owning a home but probably with debt. The increase in home ownership is due to easier credit.

This is just a bit off topic here, but most of us are aware of the radical socialists victory in Bolivia, placing the first native indian on the Central American country's highest office. Progressive of the people of Bolivia. And I have no problem with progressiveness.However, its quickly becoming clear to me that the people of another foreign country have been suckered into the control of radical socialists, and while some socialism is okay, its long been proven that socialism itself has quite a lot of faults. For instance, the original consolidation of power around the government that is requried for actual socialism to be put into to place often allows the proposed enlightened leader to take control and steer his or her country into the direction of too much government power that cannot be reversed.Only a few weeks in office, Morales has already started to make several moves that are both radical and will only result in damage to Bolivia. For instance, like in Colombia, U.S. agencies such as the DEA have been working with Bolivian military and police officials for a long time to exterminate the cocoa crop, the of course prime ingreedient in Cocaine and its by products. Last week, Morales fired 28 generals within the military, essentially his entire high command, and replaced them with young and inexperienced leiutennants. The highest-ranking military man in Bolivia was a major just a week ago, according to the Wall Street Journal's editorial entitled "Axis of Evo." The reason? For cooperating with American officials in Cocoa erradication programs. (For those of you who don't know, Evo has said that his administration will continue to outlaw cocaine and possession of the drug, but will cease all cocoa erradication programs and may legalize the plant's cultivation, for use in other products. Riiight.)While I'm sure that these men are greatful for this sudden boost to all their careers, (and that's probably the whole point) its become clear to me, even if just by circumstance, that Evo has decided to fire all these men because fighting cocaine production and use is no longer important to Bolivia, according to him, so men who are experienced in doing this job are no longer needed, and they need to be replaced with men who have loyalty to him. And, if Evo were to ever get any ideas of becoming the new "El Maximo" (as in Castro) of Bolivia, the only thing that could stop him would be the military, which is now controlled by Evo loyalists. Look, I'm just connecting the dots here, and I could definitely be wrong.Regardless, another potential cash crop has been discovered recently in Bolivia, large amounts of land based and coastal deposits of Natural Gas. Already, Evo has made moves that would show that he plans to nationalize all N. Gas production, to drive a stake through free enterprise. While this would be an important (and typical) milestone in a radical socialist's agenda, nationalized production all goes into one pocket, rather than several. And therefore, only one party is benefited: the government. Sure, its supposed to get distributed among the people, but if you entrusted the responsibility to corporations, yes, the corporations would make lots of money, but people working for them would have to potential to make lots more than they would ordinarily recieve in their monthly/weekly checks. And if it gets to that point, no more checks. Food stamps. Sure, some would have to be cut out, but they'd be an insignificant minority with effective management. It isn't perfect, but it would definitely be better for the Bolivian economy. And then the alternative is just to rely on national loyalty and welfare. If I live in Boliva, and I know I'm going to get a check every week month no matter what , why work? Or if there's someone who says I have to work, why make a quality product? I'll still get my check. And there's no hope for any bonuses or raises unless I somehow get to a position of power, so there's no motivation to do better. Ever.And, just look at Cuba. Originally a socialist country that degraded into a socialist country under Castro's iron fist. What two accomplishments does Cuba have to make up for this?1. Universal Healthcare. Oh yeah. No more insurance costs. A problem solved, but the costs elsewhere...hmm.2. Everyone loves El Maximo! That's because all the guys who can remember a time before Castro are all dead or too old to remember anything anyway. And then, when Castro finally does kick it, who's gonna replace him? Political stability wise, its just the quiet before the storm.I'm definitely open for comments, but I'm just trying to make a point.Wiseman45This message has been edited by wiseman45, 01-29-2006 08:55 PMThis message has been edited by wiseman45, 01-29-2006 08:57 PMThis message has been edited by wiseman45, 01-29-2006 09:06 PM

According to the census bureau their data includes in homeownership with any mortgage on the property as 100% owned -- there could be zero down and it would count.Ownership rates have nothing to do with the market of buying and selling houses, as the rate of change could be anywhere from 1% to 100% and still end up with the same "ownership" levels. The rates don't say whether people are buying up, or buying down, or managing to do with the house they have even though it no longer suits their needs.Randmans use of "ownership rates" is therefore a totally bogus strawman to the argument of how many houses are being bought and sold and the ability of people to do same.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

LOL. You are still on ownership rates not buying and selling rates. It's a false argument.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Actually you are way more on topic than Randman.BUT:Does anyone not living in Bolivia have any right to say how that country is run, especially by a democratically elected government?Doesn't any country have the legal right to make whatever drugs they see fit to legalize be legalized?How long does the vacuous reactionary "war" on drugs being carried to other countries have to be extended before people realize that the problem is not in other countries, but here at home?If there were no market there would be no problem. If the drugs were legalized here there would be no problem.Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 01*29*2006 09:14 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

There's a reason the nations that adopt socialism are generally poor, but some folks still think it's the way.

Maybe you don't know? The coca leaf has long been chewed directly or steeped in teas as a very effective treatment for the altitude sickness endemic to a mountain-dwelling peoples.It does have other uses beyond making cocaine. Because you like what you do, maybe?

Thus those figures are meaningless with respect to ownership rates.

the reason is that they can't compete in a capitalist world because of their underdeveloped state and the rabid manner of capitalist systems. so they make it a point to care for their citizens instead of having them chewed up by the capitalist system which has and will continue to victimize them because of their impoverished state.

Evo used to be a coca leaf farmer himself, you know. And, i think that it was part of his campaign to allow the cultivation of coca plant.As crash, mentioned, there are other uses to the plant.Anyway, i'd say you gotta respect that Evo has taken a 57% pay cut as well. Morales takes paycut

---

So intimate that your hand upon my chest is my hand,
so intimate that when I fall asleep it is your eyes that close.
- Pablo Neruda

This certainly seems on topic, and an interesting analysis. This is true for all systems, including capitalism. Indeed I am unaware of any system which does not involve a consolidation of power to a new governing body. Bush's white house is a rather extreme example of consolidation of power and it is safe to say he is not a socialist.Morales has said (before he entered office) that he will not be following Castro's form of socialism, and that Bolivia must make its own form. The question is of course what will actually happen. It is possible for socialism (like any other system) to avoid domineering pitfalls if leaders stick to practical solutions rather than theoretical or ideological ones. I don't know if he will continue to outlaw the drug or not, and frankly I don't care. What if he does allow it, including sales outside his country? Sounds like a great way for a nation to make a lot of money for itself. If I remember right Britain and the US have made a lot of money doing the same thing.That said, I have no reason to dispute his assertion. Coca is used by the indigenous bolivians for many daily things. That's the point of part of this shakeup. Evo was indigenous and understood what its majority and indigenous population do with their lives. He doesn't support the eradication of their culture because the US has a drug problem and its easier (for the US) to kick in their doors and burn their fields.Now the military will have heads that understand the majority population (I assume are part of them) and will work within that framework. It will be interesting to see where he moves with this, but again your prediction seems worse that what he has indicated as his intentions. The point is not to remove free enterprise (according to him) but rather to make sure that free enterprise does not end up exploiting the nation and its people. It is very similar to what we championed for Iraq, only the US isn't going to get a very big cut (which I suppose is a problem for us). People generally work because they can take pride in what they create. Most people are not wholly bums by nature. And obviously if it is profit sharing, then the more everyone makes the more everyone enjoys. If no one works then there will be no security if one is ot of work.But I want to turn this around on you. The same exact thing can be said for capitalism, especially for those at the top. Once they have a secure income, what incentive do they have for taking care of those that are working, or to give them a fair share? All they need to do is pit one poor person against another for dwindling pay to get their labor achieved. And what incentive do they have to stick around and help everyone once the resource has been expended?The idea that Bolivians should be caring more about whether some workers may be less efficient for those on top, than whether those on top will be less efficient for the nation, seems a bit counterfactual to recent history of Bolivia. That's why Evo is in power.You are making theoretical arguments regarding a population who need practical solutions to problems caused by earlier institution of your theoretical arguments.{AbE: Cookie's post reminded me that one of your fears seems to be nullified by Evo's recent actions regarding gov't pay. Cutting pay is not going to make it likely that the gov't will suck up money away from the population.}This message has been edited by holmes, 01-30-2006 12:35 PM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

And it includes the vacant home I "own" back in Grand Rapids MI that I have been trying to sell for over a year.And "ownership rate" has nothing to do with the movement of the market, which is what my point is about originally: houses are not selling because people cannot afford them (yet they are still "owned" so citing the ownership rate is bogus).

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Excellent post. Especially when you get to the Waltons (walmart, sams club) that cannot do enough work in a day to justify their income - it comes from robbing their employees of a fair salary.(ps - you have mail re new column material)

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

For instance, the original consolidation of power around the government that is requried for actual socialism to be put into to place often allows the proposed enlightened leader to take control and steer his or her country into the direction of too much government power that cannot be reversed.

---

Except for those forms of socialism that involve less government power, decentralization, and grass roots involvement.-quoteOnly a few weeks in office, Morales has already started to make several moves that are both radical and will only result in damage to Bolivia.[/quote]If you cannot understand why a Latin American government would be distrustful of the military establishment, especially those elements that cooperate with the US military establishment, then you must be unfamiliar with the history of the region.At any rate, it sounds as if the Bolivian government has reached the very sensible conclusion that they have much more important priorities than being foot soldiers in that North American propaganda campaign that we call "the War on Drugs".

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

RAZD, ownership rates have a great deal significance. The more people that own homes, the less people there are to buy homes.Ever consider that?The fact is it became so easy for most people to buy a home that what has happened is the demand increased and with easier credit, home prices rose. So the market was so good with so much demand and so many people able to buy homes, that in some sense, it probably overheated, and now we see many homes priced out of the market for some existing non-home owners, but even there, to say people cannot by a home is absurd. The issue is probably what sort of home do they want to buy. Homes are more expensive so the same money won't get you the same home. You have to either move or wait for circumstances to change.But regardless, the simple fact is the past 5 years, it's been easier to buy a home than ever before, and more Americans own homes than ever before. Home buying and construction has been a mainstay of the economy for the past 5 years, and considering that, it is not surprising to see home buying slow, just a little.Your thesis is just flat out wrong.